Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3743 (ALL)

Hiramani Singh v. State of U. P. and another

2010-12-15

V.K.SHUKLA

body2010
V.K. Shukla, J.;- Present writ petition in question has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the order dated 25.02.2010 passed by Licensing Authority, Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Allahabad cancelling the fire arm license of the petitioner and order of its affirmance in appeal dated 20.08.2010 passed by Appellate Forum, i.e. Commissioner, Allahabad Division Allahabad. 2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner has been fire arm licensee. One Kapil Devi Tripathi on 26.08.2009 has lodged First Information Report against the petitioner which was registered as Case Crime No. 391 of 2008, P.S. Colonelganj district Allahabad under sections 419,420,447,448,120-B I.P.C. Petitioner's contention has been that the house in dispute no.13/9-D Moti Lal Road, is a property belonging to Diocese of Lucknow Church of North India, for its effective management an attorney has been appointed by Diocese of Lucknow Church, registered papers have been duly executed on 10.5.2005 in favour of Rt. Revd. A.R. Stephen, petitioner is the active member of the diocese, the house in dispute in question has been allotted in favour of petitioner Hiramani Singh for the purpose of its effective management and control by the Secretary of the Diocese of Lucknow vide letter No. 10.1.2003, thereafter, petitioner along which his real bother Patali alias Haspatali Singh started living in the said house since 10.1.2003 and one N.B. Montroz, who illegally claims himself to be the President of All India Christian Welfare Association, moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against petitioner and other, the same was allowed and case crime no. 391 of 2008 under sections 419,420,467,468,120-B I.P.C. has been registered at P.S. Colonelganj Allahabad, the same has been challenged before this court by way of filing a criminal misc. writ petition no. 14033 of 2008 by Rt. Revd. A.R. Stephen and three others in which their arrest was stayed by another Bench of this court on 12.8.2008, the same is pending before this court, the petitioner and others are in actual physical possession of the above mentioned house, but on account of evil eyes Kapil Deo Tripathi and others wanted to grab the said property by way of interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners. Petitioner no.1 and others have filed an original suit no.1207 of 2008 in the court of Civil Judge( Senior Division) who has been pleased to grant ex party injunction in favour of the complainant and restrained the defendant not to interfere in any manner in the property in dispute, The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged with the oblique motive and the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. and 146(1) Cr.P.C. have already been initiated which are pending before the court concerned. The allegation made in the F.I.R. are false and frivolous even on the basis of the allegation made in the F.I.R. no offence is made out. After said criminal case has been filed petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18632 of 2009 (Hiramani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court and this Court has proceeded to passed order staying the arrest of the petitioner. In the said criminal case charge sheet in question has been filed and then Criminal Misc. Application No. 34497 of 2009 under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been filed wherein this Court has proceeded to pass following order which is being quoted below: "The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 1480 of 2009, under Sections 147, 452, 447, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Allahabad as well as for quashing the summoning order dated 02.12.2009 whereby applicants have been summoned to face trial under the charged Sections. 3 .It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the property belonged to Diocese of Lucknow Church of North India, of which one Revern A.R.Stephen is the attorney for the purpose of effective management and proper administration of the Church properties belonging to Lucknow Diocese and that the applicant no.1, who is active member of Lucknow Diocese of Allahabad was given property in question for effective management and up-keep of the same by Revern A.R.Stephen. It is further contended that Mr. N.B.Mantroz claiming himself to be President of All-India Christain Welfare Association is trying to create hindrance on the said property, for which he had also lodged F.I.R., copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the petition and the police after investigation submitted final report which has not been challenged. It is further contended that Mr. N.B.Mantroz claiming himself to be President of All-India Christain Welfare Association is trying to create hindrance on the said property, for which he had also lodged F.I.R., copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the petition and the police after investigation submitted final report which has not been challenged. It is next contended that the applicants are in physical possession of the property but when some unknown persons, at the behest of N.B.Mantroz tried to interfere with the possession of the applicant no.1, the applicant no.1 filed a Original Suit No. 1207 of 2008 before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad, in which an interim injunction has been granted on12.08.2008, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the petition. It is also argued that the opposite party no.2, who is the counsel of N.B.Mantroz in the civil proceedings has now initiated the present criminal prosecution against the applicants which is nothing but gross misuse of the process of Court and civil litigation has been dragged into criminal proscutiion of the applicant at the behest of the opposite party no.2 who is in no way concerned with the said property belonging to Lucknow Diocese. 4. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within a period of four weeks. Steps be taken within a week. 5. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time for filing counter affidavit. Opposite party no.2 may also file counter affidavit within the same period. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicants, two weeks thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. 6. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period. 7. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 8. Based on the complicity of the petitioner in the aforesaid case, proceedings for cancellation has been initiated. Petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter Licensing Authority proceeded to pass order of cancellation. Petitioner, thereafter preferred writ petition before this Court and this Court relegated the petitioner to the remedy of the Appeal. Thereafter appeal in question was filed and now said Appeal in question has been rejected on 20.08.2010. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed. 9. Petitioner, thereafter preferred writ petition before this Court and this Court relegated the petitioner to the remedy of the Appeal. Thereafter appeal in question was filed and now said Appeal in question has been rejected on 20.08.2010. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed. 9. Pleading inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter with the consent of the parties present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal. 10. Sri A.D. Saunder, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case petitioner has been victim of false implication and dispute inter se parties is basically of civil nature and an outcome of malice, as such merely on account of pendency of the said criminal case, such fire arm license could not have been cancelled as has been done in the present case, as public peace and public safety has not at all been endangered as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. 11. Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and no interference should be made. 12. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case that petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in Case Crime No. 391 of 2008, P.S. Colonelganj district Allahabad under sections 419, 420, 447, 448, 120-B I.P.C. . In the said criminal case charge sheet has been filed and the matter is pending before the concerned court and even before this Court for quashing of the same. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his reply. Accepted position is that there has been civil dispute in between the parties and fire arm in question has not at all been used in the criminal case wherein he has been arrayed as accused, then merely on account of pendency of the said criminal case, fire arm could not have been cancelled as has been done in the present case as it is not at reflected as to in what way and manner public peace and public safety has been endangered rather on apprehension such an action has been initiated. 13. This Court in the case of Ashok Rao Vs. 13. This Court in the case of Ashok Rao Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2010 (68) ACC 441 while considering the authority to be exercised under Section 17 of the Indian Arms Act has taken the view that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be ground for cancellation of fire arm license unless and until finding is returned by the authority concerned that possession of firearm has the tendency of threatening public peace and public safety. 14. Consequently, in the facts of the present case as there is no material on record to show and substantiate that any conduct of the petitioner has the tendancy of endangering public peace and public safety on account of retention of fire arm license by the petitioner, as such orders passed cannot be approved of. 15. Consequently, order dated 25.02.2010 passed by Licensing Authority, Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Allahabad and the order dated 20.08.2010 passed by Appellate Forum, i.e. Commissioner, Allahabad Division Allahabad are hereby quashed and set aside. However return of fire arm shall take place only in case petitioner has having valid subsisting license and in case tenure of the license in question has already run out, then return of fire arm shall abide by renewal proceedings to be undertaken in accordance with law. 16. With the above observations and directions present writ petition is allowed.